Once again Magistrate Judge Brown has issued an order that I cannot do justice by simply summarizing or excerpting, though this perhaps gives a taste:
Orth confirms rather than calls into question that he continues to misunderstand his responsibilities to the Court. They are not what he wants them to be, but what the Court's management of its calendar dictates. He completely ignores the exceptional circumstances that led to the setting of this hearing and the reasons for same. Some hearings may be considered "routine" - those set when there are serious discovery matters pending, a rapidly approaching trial date, and a discovery deadline that has passed, are not.You know, I'm going to start using exclamation points more in my own brief-writing....oh wait...in my own brief-writing!!!
Not without notice, this motion comes "full circle" in that the first reason for Orth's unavailability was because of travel for Chanukah (see D.E. 95). The second was for travel related to his fiftieth birthday, with no mention at all of Chanukah (D.E. 108). The third now incorporates the first and second (see 73c). This motion now states, for the first time, that Judge Martinez' Order striking Orth's Notice of Unavailability was "inexplicably misplaced" (73d). This was not mentioned in response to the Order to Show Cause (D.E. 108) and was never mentioned at the hearing Orth has already been given on the matter. While his staff "insists that the facts ... were communicated to the Court ",)Id., they apparently don't even know which Court they communicated with! The affidavits filed reflect the substance of conversations with Judge Martinez' chambers ... however it was the chambers of the undersigned that advised that the Notice of Unavailability was stricken and that a motion for continuance should be filed.
The situation, unfortunately, gets more egregious. Paragragh 3e of the instant motion indicates that a motion was filed in this Court under the signature of Orth by someone who is not authorized to practice law, because some else "completely trusted to communicate with courts when necessary" (but who is also not authorized to practice law) was unavailable, which motion admittedly was not approved or authorized or reviewed by any attorney! What, exactly, would Orth have this Court do with regard to this "revelation" ... shrug its shoulders and disregard same ... or forward same for criminal prosecution? See, e.g, Fla. Stat. $454.23; Jay M. Zitter, What Constitutes Unauthorized Practice of Law by Paralegal, 109 A.L.R. 5th 275(2003). However, Orth's attempt to "throw someone else under the bus," doesn't change his duties and responsibilities as an officer of the court.